If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

So, otg. If you believe she was struck intentionally, why do you believe she was suspended following? I'm not disputing, just trying to understand.

I can’t get away from thinking the head blow was deliberate. I’ve tried imagining any other possibility that might have caused it, and I can’t make enough sense out of any other scenario that, to me, accounts for it and all of the other injuries. So if I accept it as deliberate, and then try to account for the rest of the injuries, this is what I come up with. To me, I can see the cord being used to “playfully” restrain her where she wouldn’t be free to simply walk away. If it was tied loosely around her neck and then secured to another object, it would be presented to her under the pretense of tying up a pet or pretending she had been captured (as a child, I remember playing games we called “cops and robbers” and “cowboys and Indians”). While this may sound silly to anyone reading this, remember we are talking about children. Tying a cord around a child’s neck is not something that would be done by anyone capable of thinking about just how dangerous it is. It set up a precariously dangerous situation which, unfortunately, played out with the worst imaginable outcome. For whatever the reason -- anger, rage, panic, fear of discovery -- at some point the head blow is struck causing immediate unconsciousness. The weight of her body collapsing would cause the cord to tighten around her neck. At that point, she has two things working to cause death (either one of which could alone be enough to cause it). But it is this combination of insults that complicates the amount of bleeding and swelling in the brain and her body’s reaction to the ligature strangulation beyond what would otherwise be expected. If this is indeed what might have happened, the strangulation would have happened immediately after the head blow in the amount of time it would take for her body to collapse and cause the cord to tighten around her neck. I believe it stayed in its original position (where the white line is) until she was dead, and that it then moved up to the position higher on her neck where the furrow formed (even though I apparently confused everyone when I had earlier allowed for the possibility that she was still technically alive when it moved). And before anyone points out that the petechiae on her neck is something that happens only while a person is still alive, I will just mention that that is not always the case. If you read my last post and understand how the capillaries work, you can probably see why there are exceptions. But if further explanation is needed, just let me know and I’ll explain.

I won’t try to convince anyone that this is what happened. It is what I think happened though. It accounts for all the injuries from her neck up. It doesn’t require thinking the very worst of either parent. It doesn’t point to some unknown ring of pedophiles or child porn subculture, or some sort of religious or satanic ritual. It’s not nearly as appealing to those who want to look at this as some deep conspiracy within the FBI, or a group of people trying “to send JR a message”. It doesn’t mean the person who caused it was a monster or even someone who would be compelled to act out in the same way at some time later on in his life. It is not that complicated when you look only at what could not be hidden or altered before the police arrived -- that being the state of her body and what it tells us.

Many autopsy rooms have a Latin phrase written on the entrance: “Mortui viventes docent” -- The dead teach the living. JonBenet’s body tells the story of what happened to it. It’s up to us to listen.

.All views expressed in my posts are my opinion and are protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as “freedom of speech”.

I can’t get away from thinking the head blow was deliberate. I’ve tried imagining any other possibility that might have caused it, and I can’t make enough sense out of any other scenario that, to me, accounts for it and all of the other injuries. So if I accept it as deliberate, and then try to account for the rest of the injuries, this is what I come up with. To me, I can see the cord being used to “playfully” restrain her where she wouldn’t be free to simply walk away. If it was tied loosely around her neck and then secured to another object, it would be presented to her under the pretense of tying up a pet or pretending she had been captured (as a child, I remember playing games we called “cops and robbers” and “cowboys and Indians”). While this may sound silly to anyone reading this, remember we are talking about children. Tying a cord around a child’s neck is not something that would be done by anyone capable of thinking about just how dangerous it is. It set up a precariously dangerous situation which, unfortunately, played out with the worst imaginable outcome. For whatever the reason -- anger, rage, panic, fear of discovery -- at some point the head blow is struck causing immediate unconsciousness. The weight of her body collapsing would cause the cord to tighten around her neck. At that point, she has two things working to cause death (either one of which could alone be enough to cause it). But it is this combination of insults that complicates the amount of bleeding and swelling in the brain and her body’s reaction to the ligature strangulation beyond what would otherwise be expected. If this is indeed what might have happened, the strangulation would have happened immediately after the head blow in the amount of time it would take for her body to collapse and cause the cord to tighten around her neck. I believe it stayed in its original position (where the white line is) until she was dead, and that it then moved up to the position higher on her neck where the furrow formed (even though I apparently confused everyone when I had earlier allowed for the possibility that she was still technically alive when it moved). And before anyone points out that the petechiae on her neck is something that happens only while a person is still alive, I will just mention that that is not always the case. If you read my last post and understand how the capillaries work, you can probably see why there are exceptions. But if further explanation is needed, just let me know and I’ll explain.

I won’t try to convince anyone that this is what happened. It is what I think happened though. It accounts for all the injuries from her neck up. It doesn’t require thinking the very worst of either parent. It doesn’t point to some unknown ring of pedophiles or child porn subculture, or some sort of religious or satanic ritual. It’s not nearly as appealing to those who want to look at this as some deep conspiracy within the FBI, or a group of people trying “to send JR a message”. It doesn’t mean the person who caused it was a monster or even someone who would be compelled to act out in the same way at some time later on in his life. It is not that complicated when you look only at what could not be hidden or altered before the police arrived -- that being the state of her body and what it tells us.

Many autopsy rooms have a Latin phrase written on the entrance: “Mortui viventes docent” -- The dead teach the living. JonBenet’s body tells the story of what happened to it. It’s up to us to listen.

It's not far-fetched at all to believe children could tie one another up...even
tying a string, rope, etc., around a neck, etc.

According to your theory, why did the parents cover up? How, and why, did the vaginal injury occur? Do you think sexual experimentation was taking place with the tie up?

It's not far-fetched at all to believe children could tie one another up...even
tying a string, rope, etc., around a neck, etc.

Then if you agree with that point, you can see how it was set up for the disastrous consequences that weren't foreseen by the person who tied her up. Right?

According to your theory, why did the parents cover up? How, and why, did the vaginal injury occur? Do you think sexual experimentation was taking place with the tie up?

Yes, I believe the pretense for restraint was play, but the ulterior motive was sexual experimentation. I think this sexual exploration began over a prior period of time which escalated up to the night she died. The "chronic" vaginal injuries are evidence of what led up to it, and the "acute" injuries are from what occurred immediately before the head blow. I don't believe there were any vaginal injuries that were inflicted as a means of "covering up" past injuries. In fact, I don't think the parents would necessarily even be aware of any possible prior injuries, even though one or both may have been aware of possible past "involvement". I think when the parents became aware of it, she was already dead, and that they saw the evidence of the molestation that had just happened. I'm not sure if they were even aware of the head blow until they were told the results of the autopsy. It could have been that they were only told that the two were playing and that she slipped and it tightened the cord accidentally. Of course with the obvious evidence of sexual involvement, the person who caused it would have to admit to it even though it might not have been volunteered initially. It is because of the sexual aspect and the resulting death, that I believe the parents decided to cover up what really happened -- and how it happened -- and especially the evidence of the sexual molestation (that they were aware of).

.All views expressed in my posts are my opinion and are protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as “freedom of speech”.

Then if you agree with that point, you can see how it was set up for the disastrous consequences that weren't foreseen by the person who tied her up. Right?

Certainly, young children, often-times, fail to see the potential danger lurking in their actions.

Originally Posted by otg

Yes, I believe the pretense for restraint was play, but the ulterior motive was sexual experimentation. I think this sexual exploration began over a prior period of time which escalated up to the night she died. The "chronic" vaginal injuries are evidence of what led up to it, and the "acute" injuries are from what occurred immediately before the head blow. I don't believe there were any vaginal injuries that were inflicted as a means of "covering up" past injuries. In fact, I don't think the parents would necessarily even be aware of any possible prior injuries, even though one or both may have been aware of possible past "involvement". I think when the parents became aware of it, she was already dead, and that they saw the evidence of the molestation that had just happened. I'm not sure if they were even aware of the head blow until they were told the results of the autopsy. It could have been that they were only told that the two were playing and that she slipped and it tightened the cord accidentally. Of course with the obvious evidence of sexual involvement, the person who caused it would have to admit to it even though it might not have been volunteered initially. It is because of the sexual aspect and the resulting death, that I believe the parents decided to cover up what really happened -- and how it happened -- and especially the evidence of the sexual molestation (that they were aware of).

Links

I have no medical experience. I don’t claim any special knowledge beyond what I have learned by reading other sources. In fact, I often point out that I do not have any expertise in much of anything, and I again will remind you of this. But I have found a lot of information available which I gladly share with anyone interested in researching on their own. If I state something other than personal opinion or interpretation, I will provide links if asked.

Since I have stated a lot of stuff that is from other sources, I offer the following links for anyone interested in learning more. Keep in mind the following:

The physiological responses are the same in a suspension (hanging) as they are in a strangulation where the ligature is pulled by hand. The only difference is whether the ligature is pulled by another person or by the weight (full or partial) of the body against a stationary object -- but the body’s response and the resulting injuries are the same. Typically (but not always), the angle of the pull will be close to horizontal when the cord is pulled from behind by a person, and it will be angled obliquely upwards in a suspended strangulation.

Most suspended strangulations are suicidal. Much less are accidental, and very few are homicidal. This only addresses intent, since obviously the result is the same, so reading about any is still useful in learning about the injuries that are consistent with any of the causes.

Some of the articles are from foreign sources, so common ligature sources may be different from what would be expected in the U.S. (e.g., A “chunni” is a common article of clothing for women in South Asia and is therefore often used in both suicides and homicides in that area of the world.)

Here are a few links to get started (in no particular order). I won’t offer any more unless requested (this is probably more than most here will care to read, but these sources have a great deal of information which pertains to the injuries inflicted on JonBenet):

If this is indeed what might have happened, the strangulation would have happened immediately after the head blow in the amount of time it would take for her body to collapse and cause the cord to tighten around her neck.

But the autopsy report states that the head blow and the strangulation by the cord did NOT happen at the same time or even shortly separated, and the bleed in her brain shows that there was a time between the 2. If she had been strangled by the cord right after the head blow, her brain would not have had time to bleed out into her skull to the extent that it did.

"We're not necessarily doubting that God will do the best for us; we are wondering how painful the best will turn out to be." - C.S. Lewis

But the autopsy report states that the head blow and the strangulation by the cord did NOT happen at the same time or even shortly separated, and the bleed in her brain shows that there was a time between the 2. If she had been strangled by the cord right after the head blow, her brain would not have had time to bleed out into her skull to the extent that it did.

You’ll have to point me to where in the AR is says anything about the timing between the two. I only read that she died from “asphyxia by strangulation associated with craniocerebral trauma”. That in itself doesn’t speak to the timing between the two.

As for the amount of bleeding in her skull, I would appreciate a chart that tells us how much bleeding should be expected under the exact same circumstances to know whether it was too much or too little -- but there isn’t one. There are so many conflicting factors as to what should be expected that even the so-called experts can’t agree. Dr. Wecht believes that because of the “small amount” of blood, she must have been already dead or near-dead (from strangulation) when the head blow was struck. On the opposite side of the debate, Dr. Rorke-Adams believes that because of the amount of edema and necrosis of brain tissue, she was hit over the head a full 45-minutes to 2-hours before she was strangled (I strongly disagree with her on this and will at some time go into more detail about why.). Dr. Kerry Brega (chief neurologist at Denver Health Medical Center at the time) said it is not uncommon for people with skull fractures to not have any bleeding in the brain at all.

Why such a wide difference in opinion?

Perhaps each expert considers one or two factors and fails to take into consideration something else, because of how complicated the circulatory system is (even more so in the system that supplies the brain with blood and oxygen). I wrote a pretty detailed explanation of some of the factors in a post at WS if anyone cares to read it. But I think everyone here has read and learned enough already that they could probably make an argument either way. IMO, it is enough simply to say that because of the combination of the strangulation and the head trauma, it could be expected to find either more or less blood in the brain than there actually was. So the amount of blood that was described by Meyer in itself is not enough to determine the order of the two, or even more the amount of time between them.

.All views expressed in my posts are my opinion and are protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as “freedom of speech”.

I disagree with Dr. Wecht on this one too, DD. The swelling that occurs in the brain is mostly due to fluids that build up almost immediately after trauma. As the outer “folds” of the brain expand due to the swelling, they press against the skull cap (calvarium) and become flattened, narrowing the spaces between them.

Here is a good illustration showing several different signs of swelling in a brain (because of copyrights, I should mention it was taken from Knight’s Forensic Pathology by Pekka J. Saukko and Bernard Knight):

Here is the accompanying text about edema from the same book (Notice the exceptions mentioned referring to children):

So in children (and I’ve read this from other sources as well), cerebral edema is more likely, more pronounced, and more quickly occurring than in an adult. Also, edema in the brain can be caused from (or worsened by) hypoxia (ischemic hypoxia can be caused by strangulation).

Injuries to the skull and brain are divided into two types: primary and secondary. Primary injuries are the direct result of the physical cause. Secondary injuries are the body’s response to the primary injuries. Brain swelling is a secondary injury.

Four types of cerebral edema (referring to response mechanism) are generally accepted (Vasogenic, Cytotoxic, Osmotic, and Interstitial), and some sources include a separate fifth type (Hydrostatic) which is considered a sub-type of vasogenic edema by others. JonBenet’s cerebral edema was (IMO) primarily cytotoxic as well as vasogenic, which is not particularly important because it is only different on a cellular level and Dr. Meyer doesn’t mention it in the AR.

Cerebral edema is classified into three categories of extent (or patterns): local, diffuse half-brain, and diffuse whole-brain. Unfortunately, Dr. Meyer didn’t go into detail about the extent of the swelling. He only mentions one of the signs of it describing it as “mild”, and he tells us the weight of the brain (which indicates that there was swelling):

“The 1450 gm brain has a normal overall architecture. Mild narrowing of the sulci and flattening of the gyri are seen. No inflammation is identified.”

Here is a scale showing average brain weights and brain-to-body weight ratios with JonBenet’s age/gender marked by a green line showing where it should fall (JBR’s ratio is 1.45 kg/20.4 kg X 100 = 7.1):

According to Kolar, the extent of cerebral swelling was one of the factors Dr. Lucy used in forming her opinion as to the length of time between the head blow and the strangulation. But as we know, the additional factor of strangulation can have an influence on how the brain reacts to the head blow (which is why the coroner worded the COD as he did, IMO).

Exactly how much swelling should be expected is really indeterminable due to all the complicating factors, so I don't think it can accurately be used to estimate the amount of time between the two insults. It can be used though to determine the order of the two.

The head blow happened before the strangulation.

.All views expressed in my posts are my opinion and are protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as “freedom of speech”.